The question was not WRT the proxies. We have declared a hot war against Orthodox Islamic terrorism, something we never did to the Russian commies. I suspect that is because the Russian commies never killed us by the thousands.
Nope - there were several hot wars against various proxy regimes, just as there are hot wars against various (or percieved) franchises of al-Q in various parts of the world (Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, the claims that were made before Iraq etc). Of course, the main difference is that you couldnt declare war against the Soviets in the open way that you have against al-Q because it would have lead to an actual, genuine apocalypse.
1. The USSR, along with Nazi Germany, was the proximate cause of WWII. No great outcry to get involved when the two sides f ht esame totalitarian coin were chumming it up. After Hitler nearly defeated the USSR, though, the commies, lefties, and sympathizers in gov't were all sorts of eager to jump in.
Actually it was (at least in the UK) the left who started to oppose Nazi Germany before most of the right (at least "most of the Tory Party") did. Also lets not forget that the UK and France had actually declared war on the Germans before the secret provisions of the treaty you mention came into effect.
2. Half of America's WW2 effort was not against the Japs. Only a small fraction of total American WW2 resources were deployed against the Japanese. The VAST majority was deployed against Germany. Were it not for MacArthur's tender pride, the Japanese could have been handled with only the USMC and small fractions of the Navy and Army Air Corps, making the ratio even more skewed.
I didnt say "half of America's WW2 effort".
3. The Soviets never would have come close to surviving were it not for American material aid, period. They would have been a mess of mass starvation and inadequate logistics that would have been rolled up to the Urals.
Not really. As microbalrog states, once they had won in the winter of 1941 (or rather not lost), and once Stalin had taken the important decision to trust key members of his military leadership for the duration of the war, they were always going to win a war of attrition with the Nazis.
4. More square miles of Europe were under totalitarian rule after WW2 than before. We kicked the crap out of one devil only to pave the way for the next.
This I agree with, though without starting a new - and almost certainly much worse - war right after Germany fell its difficult to see what else could have been done.
5. We did not go on to finish the job of destroying totalitarianism and deliberately let the Soviets penetrate farther into Europe had our leadership not deliberately delayed.
This was perhaps a sensible decision, given that very few people would have gone along with it.
Net result; after all that blood, money, and effort; was an enlarged and strengthened evil Russian communist empire. Pardon me if I do not cheer the result.
Would the alternative (if they had been able to win) have been any better?
[/quote]
